Rick Warren's Blessing and Obama's

The furor over the minister selected to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural is a measure of how the traditional separation of church and state for more than two centuries has broken down in American life over the past eight years.

In decades of acting out his informal role as the "President's pastor," Billy Graham affirmed the values of Christianity without applying them to political issues and without suggesting a state-sponsored religion at the expense of those with other beliefs or none. No President would have welcomed him to the White House if he had.

Now we have Obama defending his choice of Rick Warren on the grounds that the best-selling minister is tolerant of the President-Elect's political views:

"I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion...

"And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about: That we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere...where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

Barack Obama did not go to Warren's church to discuss politics, but Warren's invitation to offer a blessing at the Inaugural, by his activism on political issues, inevitably is seen as tolerance for if not approval of that commingling of church and state.

The new president has promised Change from what George W. Bush brought to the White House. This, sad to say, looks like more of the same.

Petraeus for VP?

Asked by Rick Warren to name "the three wisest people you would rely on heavily in an administration," John McCain led off with David Petraeus, which raises the question of why not have the general at his side as a running mate?

Since, in McCain's judgment, the Iraq war has been won, wouldn't Petraeus' wisdom be useful in a broader role? After presiding over victory in World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, with no previous political experience, went straight to the White House, so the vice-presidency for a newcomer would not be a radical departure.

Aside from that, Gen. Petraeus has been deeply involved in the politics of Iraq, sometimes to the dismay of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and just last week went to Beirut to meet with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Fuad Siniora on the military-political situation there.

Since the US military has been drawn so deeply into politics by the Bush Administration, Petraeus as VP might be the logical next stop.

According to an editor of US News & World Report, Petraeus has already helped save the US economy with the success of the Surge allowing Iraq to pump 2.4 million barrels of petroleum a day and prevent "$200-a-barrel oil--or maybe twice that."

With all this success on America's foreign and domestic fronts, doesn't Petraeus qualify as a VP choice for McCain?

High-Fives for Fake News

Journalism research today shows devotees of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to be better-informed than watchers of cable news shows hosted by Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Larry King, thereby raising the question of whether it's more helpful to lampoon the news than slobber all over it.

Asked which party now controls Congress, who is the current US secretary of state and to name the new prime minister of Great Britain, Comedy Central viewers outscored those who watch most cable TV news programs as well as those who claim to read newsmagazines and daily newspapers.

On the weekend, the New York Times asked, "Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?" with critic Michiko Kakutani concluding the Daily Show "has earned a devoted following that regards the broadcast as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news.

"'The Daily Show' resonates not only because it is wickedly funny but also because its keen sense of the absurd is perfectly attuned to an era in which cognitive dissonance has become a national epidemic."

What Stewart and Colbert tonight will make of two men aspiring to the most powerful position in the world being quizzed like schoolboys by a best-selling, pop culture clergyman remains to be seen, but it's clear that only connoisseurs of the ridiculous can do the sight justice.

Candidates in Church: The Big Question

By the standards of traditional politics, in tonight's talkfest with Rick Warren, John McCain "won," but the verdict of victory brings into focus the great unanswered question of this presidential campaign: Are American voters really ready for a new kind of politics?

In his answers, McCain was free of doubt, firm and decisive, directing his words to the audience and the cameras, while Obama kept eye contact in conversation with Warren, giving nuanced responses on complex subjects such as abortion and the relationship between government and faith-based organizations.

But until now, nuance has not been a winning strategy in political campaigns, and the wave of enthusiasm for Obama's approach will be washing up against McCain's rock-hard certainties when voters cast their ballots.

While professing strong personal faith, Obama seemed to be addressing Americans who can incorporate doubt into their belief and work to resolve conflicting values and desires, while McCain offered himself as a true believer with no leeway for ambiguity or ambivalence.

After eight years of Bush-Cheney's polarizing view of the world, Obama's approach should have widespread support, but can it overcome the appeal of straight talk that is not always supported by straight thinking?

When they meet in head-on debate, that will be Obama's challenge but, for one night at least, McCain made very good use of a bully pulpit.

Purpose-Driven Candidates

It won't be a debate or even a town hall, but John McCain and Barack Obama will be on the same stage tomorrow night at Rick Warren's mega-church in California and on the world stage through CNN. The air could be filled with piety and platitudes.

After appearing together briefly, they will be questioned separately by the author of "The Purpose-Driven Life," who promises to bypass the gotcha questions by interviewers who "pounce on every misstatement, every partial statement” and give the candidates a “ten-per-cent grace factor.” If one of them misspeaks, Warren says “I always think, Aw, he didn’t mean that.”

This kind of gentle grilling may be a relief to those who were turned off by the infamous ABC debate in April when Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos badgered and interrupted Obama and Hillary Clinton to widespread criticism and disgust.

But the "Aw, he didn't mean that" approach could result only in professions of faith without substance unless the best-selling Evangelist described by Time as "a suprapolitical, supracreedal arbiter of public virtues and religious responsibilities" finds a way to use his medically diagnosed adrenaline overdrive to get Obama and McCain past self-puffery.

The event will test not only the candidates but the preacher-social activist who is being seen as a 21st century combination of Billy Graham and Albert Schweitzer.

"I want," he says, "to know how they handle a crisis, because a lot of the things in the presidency often deal with things you don't know are going to happen."

Amen to that.